Here in the U.S., FM radio stations are on odd frequencies (like 97.9, 103.5, etc.). I thought I have seen radio station promos for stations overseas with even FM frequencies (95.8, 100.4, etc.). So why is there a difference?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Technical radio question
- Thread starter radioguy555
- Start date
K
KMRichards
Guest
> Here in the U.S., FM radio stations are on odd frequencies
> (like 97.9, 103.5, etc.). I thought I have seen radio
> station promos for stations overseas with even FM
> frequencies (95.8, 100.4, etc.). So why is there a
> difference?
Two reasons, both having to do with the way the regulatory agencies in each country have decided to do FM.
In North America, the FCC based spacing requirements on there being 200kHz between FM channels. Canada and Mexico followed the FCC's lead.
The U.K., and many other countries, use different spacing requirements, which means there can be a 107.2 and a 107.3 spaced closer to each other than we would have a 107.1 and a 107.3 spaced. Personally, I like that approach better.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> (like 97.9, 103.5, etc.). I thought I have seen radio
> station promos for stations overseas with even FM
> frequencies (95.8, 100.4, etc.). So why is there a
> difference?
Two reasons, both having to do with the way the regulatory agencies in each country have decided to do FM.
In North America, the FCC based spacing requirements on there being 200kHz between FM channels. Canada and Mexico followed the FCC's lead.
The U.K., and many other countries, use different spacing requirements, which means there can be a 107.2 and a 107.3 spaced closer to each other than we would have a 107.1 and a 107.3 spaced. Personally, I like that approach better.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
K
k9ez
Guest
> > Here in the U.S., FM radio stations are on odd frequencies
>
> > (like 97.9, 103.5, etc.). I thought I have seen radio
> > station promos for stations overseas with even FM
> > frequencies (95.8, 100.4, etc.). So why is there a
> > difference?
>
> Two reasons, both having to do with the way the regulatory
> agencies in each country have decided to do FM.
>
> In North America, the FCC based spacing requirements on
> there being 200kHz between FM channels. Canada and Mexico
> followed the FCC's lead.
>
> The U.K., and many other countries, use different spacing
> requirements, which means there can be a 107.2 and a 107.3
> spaced closer to each other than we would have a 107.1 and a
> 107.3 spaced. Personally, I like that approach better.
>
The thing with the UK is that a lot of FMs are very low power... only intended to cover a single city. If we did that in the US (where we have more area to cover) we would have major interference issues.
>
> > (like 97.9, 103.5, etc.). I thought I have seen radio
> > station promos for stations overseas with even FM
> > frequencies (95.8, 100.4, etc.). So why is there a
> > difference?
>
> Two reasons, both having to do with the way the regulatory
> agencies in each country have decided to do FM.
>
> In North America, the FCC based spacing requirements on
> there being 200kHz between FM channels. Canada and Mexico
> followed the FCC's lead.
>
> The U.K., and many other countries, use different spacing
> requirements, which means there can be a 107.2 and a 107.3
> spaced closer to each other than we would have a 107.1 and a
> 107.3 spaced. Personally, I like that approach better.
>
The thing with the UK is that a lot of FMs are very low power... only intended to cover a single city. If we did that in the US (where we have more area to cover) we would have major interference issues.
The main reason I wondered about this is to ponder whether or not radio will ever expand like TV has. On digital cable, you can get hundreds of channels with no limitations. However, the radio dial is limited. I guess satellite radio will be the next big thing for the medium as it becomes cheaper and more readily available.
>I guess satellite radio will be the next big thing for the medium as it becomes cheaper and more readily available.
I disagree. Within a few years, 5 at most, the internet will become common in cars, thanks to the explosion of wifi and the ability to subscribe to broadband in a moving vehicle.
Satellite radio will be remembered as a short transitional episode, kind of like those scrambled-pay-TV broadcast stations that existed in the 80's until cable reached a critical mass.
XM and Sirius, if they survive, will be Internet services, competing with all the others.
Broadcast radio won't disappear, but many stations will go dark and the remainders will have super-local programming, with much of the audience listening online.
I disagree. Within a few years, 5 at most, the internet will become common in cars, thanks to the explosion of wifi and the ability to subscribe to broadband in a moving vehicle.
Satellite radio will be remembered as a short transitional episode, kind of like those scrambled-pay-TV broadcast stations that existed in the 80's until cable reached a critical mass.
XM and Sirius, if they survive, will be Internet services, competing with all the others.
Broadcast radio won't disappear, but many stations will go dark and the remainders will have super-local programming, with much of the audience listening online.
> >I guess satellite radio will be the next big thing for the
> medium as it becomes cheaper and more readily available.
>
> I disagree. Within a few years, 5 at most, the internet
> will become common in cars, thanks to the explosion of wifi
> and the ability to subscribe to broadband in a moving
> vehicle.
>
> Satellite radio will be remembered as a short transitional
> episode, kind of like those scrambled-pay-TV broadcast
> stations that existed in the 80's until cable reached a
> critical mass.
>
> XM and Sirius, if they survive, will be Internet services,
> competing with all the others.
>
> Broadcast radio won't disappear, but many stations will go
> dark and the remainders will have super-local programming,
> with much of the audience listening online.
>
Internet stations won't provide local traffic or weather or news. If there's an emergency, there may be no Internet access. Many Internet stations don't have jocks, even voicetracked ones. People will still listen to local stations.<P ID="signature">______________
17-year-old radio geek
Location: Princeton Junction, NJ
AIM: KewlDude471</P>
> medium as it becomes cheaper and more readily available.
>
> I disagree. Within a few years, 5 at most, the internet
> will become common in cars, thanks to the explosion of wifi
> and the ability to subscribe to broadband in a moving
> vehicle.
>
> Satellite radio will be remembered as a short transitional
> episode, kind of like those scrambled-pay-TV broadcast
> stations that existed in the 80's until cable reached a
> critical mass.
>
> XM and Sirius, if they survive, will be Internet services,
> competing with all the others.
>
> Broadcast radio won't disappear, but many stations will go
> dark and the remainders will have super-local programming,
> with much of the audience listening online.
>
Internet stations won't provide local traffic or weather or news. If there's an emergency, there may be no Internet access. Many Internet stations don't have jocks, even voicetracked ones. People will still listen to local stations.<P ID="signature">______________
17-year-old radio geek
Location: Princeton Junction, NJ
AIM: KewlDude471</P>
> > >I guess satellite radio will be the next big thing for
> the
> > medium as it becomes cheaper and more readily available.
> >
> > I disagree. Within a few years, 5 at most, the internet
> > will become common in cars, thanks to the explosion of
> wifi
> > and the ability to subscribe to broadband in a moving
> > vehicle.
> >
> > Satellite radio will be remembered as a short transitional
>
> > episode, kind of like those scrambled-pay-TV broadcast
> > stations that existed in the 80's until cable reached a
> > critical mass.
> >
> > XM and Sirius, if they survive, will be Internet services,
>
> > competing with all the others.
> >
> > Broadcast radio won't disappear, but many stations will go
>
> > dark and the remainders will have super-local programming,
>
> > with much of the audience listening online.
> >
> Internet stations won't provide local traffic or weather or
> news. If there's an emergency, there may be no Internet
> access. Many Internet stations don't have jocks, even
> voicetracked ones. People will still listen to local
> stations.
>
One can run an Internet station from anywhere with a server and a connection. It would be cheaper and easier for local community groups to run a stream as opposed to an LPFM or other licensed station.
As for local news/traffic on major music streams, the services of Metro, CC, etc. will still be in high demand by streamers (not to mention, you may very well be able to listen to their uninterrupted feeds).
One midsized market (Little Rock) already has its own Net-only local newstalker. Radio veterans in other cities may decide to take their talents online as well. When it comes to declining or dead formats like oldies and B/EZ, it may be the only option.
As far as emergency services, that's why NOAA exists. Multiple WiFi networks with redundancy should keep some service up in all but the most catastrophic disasters, in which case the NOAA system and terrestrial stations will likely be knocked off also.
When it comes to jocks, etc., the streams of the future won't really resemble their early counterparts. They will sound more like our current terrestrial stations. CC is already undertaking a major streaming initiative and I wouldn't be surprised to see their various canned formats becoming identical except for locally-oriented dropins. Joe and Jane Listener won't notice the difference.
As for XM and Sirius, I'll be shocked if they last long enough to make the change.
> the
> > medium as it becomes cheaper and more readily available.
> >
> > I disagree. Within a few years, 5 at most, the internet
> > will become common in cars, thanks to the explosion of
> wifi
> > and the ability to subscribe to broadband in a moving
> > vehicle.
> >
> > Satellite radio will be remembered as a short transitional
>
> > episode, kind of like those scrambled-pay-TV broadcast
> > stations that existed in the 80's until cable reached a
> > critical mass.
> >
> > XM and Sirius, if they survive, will be Internet services,
>
> > competing with all the others.
> >
> > Broadcast radio won't disappear, but many stations will go
>
> > dark and the remainders will have super-local programming,
>
> > with much of the audience listening online.
> >
> Internet stations won't provide local traffic or weather or
> news. If there's an emergency, there may be no Internet
> access. Many Internet stations don't have jocks, even
> voicetracked ones. People will still listen to local
> stations.
>
One can run an Internet station from anywhere with a server and a connection. It would be cheaper and easier for local community groups to run a stream as opposed to an LPFM or other licensed station.
As for local news/traffic on major music streams, the services of Metro, CC, etc. will still be in high demand by streamers (not to mention, you may very well be able to listen to their uninterrupted feeds).
One midsized market (Little Rock) already has its own Net-only local newstalker. Radio veterans in other cities may decide to take their talents online as well. When it comes to declining or dead formats like oldies and B/EZ, it may be the only option.
As far as emergency services, that's why NOAA exists. Multiple WiFi networks with redundancy should keep some service up in all but the most catastrophic disasters, in which case the NOAA system and terrestrial stations will likely be knocked off also.
When it comes to jocks, etc., the streams of the future won't really resemble their early counterparts. They will sound more like our current terrestrial stations. CC is already undertaking a major streaming initiative and I wouldn't be surprised to see their various canned formats becoming identical except for locally-oriented dropins. Joe and Jane Listener won't notice the difference.
As for XM and Sirius, I'll be shocked if they last long enough to make the change.
T
Tom_
Guest
Re: Broadband interference with AM reception...and other problems to overcome...
> Internet stations won't provide local traffic or weather or
> news. If there's an emergency, there may be no Internet
> access. Many Internet stations don't have jocks, even
> voicetracked ones. People will still listen to local
> stations.
Furthermore, broadband over phone lines will interfere with AM reception. People in "fringe" areas of their local affiliates may not be able to hear AM that well due to broadband unless they have a good radio. And phone lines get knocked down in storms. Furthermore, most people have no idea whatsoever how to operate Internet talk radio. And even if they did, people will not leave their computers on 24/7 just to hear the radio. As for cars, most people would not be able to afford Internet equipment to listen while driving. And what about going on backcountry roads away from phone lines. Not to mention the terrible problems of re-buffering if an audio stream fails, which they will when you have an emergency with too many people logging on-line. Essentially, providing emergency info over the internet is not at this time a fail proof system.
Or, audio streams that work with one media player/brower but not another. It takes me dozens and dozens of frustrating hours to revise an internet talk radio site since links are always changing and there are often multiple links for the same network...some work, and some do not work. As for NOAA weather radio, few people in states without true weather emergencies even know it exists, and even if they did, they wouldn't even know that it's not even available on the AM or FM dial (it's 162.55mHz and adjacent frequencies). How can someone with their hands on the steering wheel push the play button on their computer to get the stream to re-buffer if they are hearing a traffic report. Until there are solutions to these significant obstacles (which there probably will be), conventional AM radio will in my opinion indefinitely remain the major communications medium for emergencies.
How long will it take to work out all these problems? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? My vote: 15 or more. Sounds like a talk radio program...perhaps Radio-Info dot com could take polls on questions like these on the off the air board!
In my opinion, the best solution is for cell phone companies to contract with radio networks and people can dial in to listen to radio. This avoids broadband interference and phone line breakage problems. And then people won't have to pay for mobile broadband equipment. Several companies are already doing this, such as All Talk Radio dot Net in Las Vegas.
http://www.alltalkradio.net/
In the final analysis, the free market will determine what happens and when...Personally I think it's an intriguing concept...but many obstacles remain...We'll see!
> Internet stations won't provide local traffic or weather or
> news. If there's an emergency, there may be no Internet
> access. Many Internet stations don't have jocks, even
> voicetracked ones. People will still listen to local
> stations.
Furthermore, broadband over phone lines will interfere with AM reception. People in "fringe" areas of their local affiliates may not be able to hear AM that well due to broadband unless they have a good radio. And phone lines get knocked down in storms. Furthermore, most people have no idea whatsoever how to operate Internet talk radio. And even if they did, people will not leave their computers on 24/7 just to hear the radio. As for cars, most people would not be able to afford Internet equipment to listen while driving. And what about going on backcountry roads away from phone lines. Not to mention the terrible problems of re-buffering if an audio stream fails, which they will when you have an emergency with too many people logging on-line. Essentially, providing emergency info over the internet is not at this time a fail proof system.
Or, audio streams that work with one media player/brower but not another. It takes me dozens and dozens of frustrating hours to revise an internet talk radio site since links are always changing and there are often multiple links for the same network...some work, and some do not work. As for NOAA weather radio, few people in states without true weather emergencies even know it exists, and even if they did, they wouldn't even know that it's not even available on the AM or FM dial (it's 162.55mHz and adjacent frequencies). How can someone with their hands on the steering wheel push the play button on their computer to get the stream to re-buffer if they are hearing a traffic report. Until there are solutions to these significant obstacles (which there probably will be), conventional AM radio will in my opinion indefinitely remain the major communications medium for emergencies.
How long will it take to work out all these problems? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? My vote: 15 or more. Sounds like a talk radio program...perhaps Radio-Info dot com could take polls on questions like these on the off the air board!
In my opinion, the best solution is for cell phone companies to contract with radio networks and people can dial in to listen to radio. This avoids broadband interference and phone line breakage problems. And then people won't have to pay for mobile broadband equipment. Several companies are already doing this, such as All Talk Radio dot Net in Las Vegas.
http://www.alltalkradio.net/
In the final analysis, the free market will determine what happens and when...Personally I think it's an intriguing concept...but many obstacles remain...We'll see!
O
ojmurphy
Guest
> > > Here in the U.S., FM radio stations are on odd
> frequencies
> >
> > > (like 97.9, 103.5, etc.). I thought I have seen radio
> > > station promos for stations overseas with even FM
> > > frequencies (95.8, 100.4, etc.). So why is there a
> > > difference?
> >
> > Two reasons, both having to do with the way the regulatory
>
> > agencies in each country have decided to do FM.
> >
> > In North America, the FCC based spacing requirements on
> > there being 200kHz between FM channels. Canada and Mexico
>
> > followed the FCC's lead.
> >
> > The U.K., and many other countries, use different spacing
> > requirements, which means there can be a 107.2 and a 107.3
>
> > spaced closer to each other than we would have a 107.1 and
> a
> > 107.3 spaced. Personally, I like that approach better.
> >
>
>
> The thing with the UK is that a lot of FMs are very low
> power... only intended to cover a single city. If we did
> that in the US (where we have more area to cover) we would
> have major interference issues.
>
Thanks for answering this one guys. Strangely I was going to ask exactly the same question, when I noted that my hire car in the US recently only scrolled up in odd points (like the UK obviously), but again this board came up trumps!
<P ID="signature">______________
Owen</P>
> frequencies
> >
> > > (like 97.9, 103.5, etc.). I thought I have seen radio
> > > station promos for stations overseas with even FM
> > > frequencies (95.8, 100.4, etc.). So why is there a
> > > difference?
> >
> > Two reasons, both having to do with the way the regulatory
>
> > agencies in each country have decided to do FM.
> >
> > In North America, the FCC based spacing requirements on
> > there being 200kHz between FM channels. Canada and Mexico
>
> > followed the FCC's lead.
> >
> > The U.K., and many other countries, use different spacing
> > requirements, which means there can be a 107.2 and a 107.3
>
> > spaced closer to each other than we would have a 107.1 and
> a
> > 107.3 spaced. Personally, I like that approach better.
> >
>
>
> The thing with the UK is that a lot of FMs are very low
> power... only intended to cover a single city. If we did
> that in the US (where we have more area to cover) we would
> have major interference issues.
>
Thanks for answering this one guys. Strangely I was going to ask exactly the same question, when I noted that my hire car in the US recently only scrolled up in odd points (like the UK obviously), but again this board came up trumps!
<P ID="signature">______________
Owen</P>
W
westlife
Guest
> Thanks for answering this one guys. Strangely I was going to
> ask exactly the same question, when I noted that my hire car
> in the US recently only scrolled up in odd points (like the
> UK obviously), but again this board came up trumps!
Many radios these days have "world-band" FM tuners which tune in .05 MHz steps... that is, it goes 97.50, 97.55, 97.60, 97.65, etc. That can help when you're trying to pull in a weak signal that's right next to a strong one, since you can "off-tune" it a bit to get better selectivity, but otherwise it's just an annoyance because you have to hit the button four times instead of only once to get to the next valid frequency.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> ask exactly the same question, when I noted that my hire car
> in the US recently only scrolled up in odd points (like the
> UK obviously), but again this board came up trumps!
Many radios these days have "world-band" FM tuners which tune in .05 MHz steps... that is, it goes 97.50, 97.55, 97.60, 97.65, etc. That can help when you're trying to pull in a weak signal that's right next to a strong one, since you can "off-tune" it a bit to get better selectivity, but otherwise it's just an annoyance because you have to hit the button four times instead of only once to get to the next valid frequency.
<P ID="signature">______________
What about HD radio? How does that fit into this?
> >I guess satellite radio will be the next big thing for the
> medium as it becomes cheaper and more readily available.
>
> I disagree. Within a few years, 5 at most, the internet
> will become common in cars, thanks to the explosion of wifi
> and the ability to subscribe to broadband in a moving
> vehicle.
>
> Satellite radio will be remembered as a short transitional
> episode, kind of like those scrambled-pay-TV broadcast
> stations that existed in the 80's until cable reached a
> critical mass.
>
> XM and Sirius, if they survive, will be Internet services,
> competing with all the others.
>
> Broadcast radio won't disappear, but many stations will go
> dark and the remainders will have super-local programming,
> with much of the audience listening online.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
> >I guess satellite radio will be the next big thing for the
> medium as it becomes cheaper and more readily available.
>
> I disagree. Within a few years, 5 at most, the internet
> will become common in cars, thanks to the explosion of wifi
> and the ability to subscribe to broadband in a moving
> vehicle.
>
> Satellite radio will be remembered as a short transitional
> episode, kind of like those scrambled-pay-TV broadcast
> stations that existed in the 80's until cable reached a
> critical mass.
>
> XM and Sirius, if they survive, will be Internet services,
> competing with all the others.
>
> Broadcast radio won't disappear, but many stations will go
> dark and the remainders will have super-local programming,
> with much of the audience listening online.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
- Status